I was starving myself - Now I just had buttered cornbread!

Options
Turnaround2012
Turnaround2012 Posts: 362 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I see all these threads about how many calories to eat. It is like a pattern. Someone who clearly should be eating at least 1500+ comes in and argues with the "collective" on the board about how they are going to keep eating 1000-1200 calories per day. (Yes, there are exceptions where this is the right level for some).

But, (no secret here), most of us need to be eating more.

I was one of those people that thought I had to A) Starve myself, B) Run myself into the ground in order to lose weight. I went back to two years ago (data on another site) and looked at a two week stretch where I thought I was "successful". WRONG!! :sick:

Let's dispense with the facts here: 5'7" male starting at 200+ lbs, 50 years old at the time.

If I calculate my BMR and TDEE now (thanks scooby) http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
Using: 5'7" - 189 lbs - 52 years - male - 1-3 hours light ex - 15% reduction

I get a BMR = 1740, TDEE = 2392, and 2033 Daily Cals.

I took a 14 day snapshot from two years ago and averaged:

Gross Cals: 1622 cals per day, Exercised for 334 cals, and netted 1288

I was netting and EATING UNDER my BMR - No wonder I was always tired, sick, and "hangry"

After that 14 days.. here is a sample of the calorie counts after I emerged from a "starving cycle" to a "pig out cycle":

7424, 3162, 4763, 5300, 3761, 4240, 4770, 5300

Can you say Big Macs, Pizza Buffets, Snickers, Cape Cod Potato chips, and Dunkin Donuts - ALL IN THE SAME DAY
I can! :drinker:

It took me years to wake up. When I started getting serious on MFP just a few months ago, I was still trying to eat as little as possible. I thought I was a "unique crystallization of airborne water molecules". I started reading more posts and forums:

For example: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet

I eat to fuel my workouts now.

I will let my modest numbers to the talking for July 24th, 2013 to August 23rd, 2013 - 30 days:

Weight: 192.2 - 188.4 - Slow and steady wins the race (got as low as 186.6)
Avg. Daily calories: 2368 cals
Avg. Daily Exercise; 466 cals
Avg. Daily Net: 1902 cals

As you can see I am netting (1902) right between my BMR (1740) and my TDEE (2392)

By the way I am using the MFP (My Fitness Pal) method and eating back some, but not all of my exercise calories.

If you are new here.. Please have an open mind and stop thinking that food is the enemy. There are a lot of great stories out here. I hope to be one of them. Not yet.. because I am still at 29% BF and my goal is 15% BF.

In the meantime - I just ate two cracker barrel cornbread muffins with butter and felt great about it!

Sometimes that beats going to Disneyland!

Good luck everyone!

TR
«134

Replies

  • itsscottwilder
    itsscottwilder Posts: 317
    Options
    Preach!

    Slow and steady. Sensible, practical, repeatable, sustainable.

    Lifestyle!

    Way to go!
  • Turnaround2012
    Turnaround2012 Posts: 362 Member
    Options
    Preach!

    Slow and steady. Sensible, practical, repeatable, sustainable.

    Lifestyle!

    Way to go!

    Thanks Man. It was really wild how the numbers actually all worked out!
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

    people
    are
    not
    all
    the
    same

    most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.
  • egracheva
    egracheva Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    Thanks for this post!!!! I've been on here for the last 30 days and was one of those under 1200 calories/day + exercise and felt "good" about starving myself. I'm really grateful to one of my MFP palls who snapped me out of that mindset. She introduced me to TDEE and BMR calculators. I still eat a bit less calories than I need but all the additional stress of "taking one more bite" is gone. It is so much more peaceful this way!
  • Turnaround2012
    Turnaround2012 Posts: 362 Member
    Options
    Thanks for this post!!!! I've been on here for the last 30 days and was one of those under 1200 calories/day + exercise and felt "good" about starving myself. I'm really grateful to one of my MFP palls who snapped me out of that mindset. She introduced me to TDEE and BMR calculators. I still eat a bit less calories than I need but all the additional stress of "taking one more bite" is gone. It is so much more peaceful this way!

    I like the "peaceful" quote!

    Thanks! :drinker:
  • Turnaround2012
    Turnaround2012 Posts: 362 Member
    Options
    what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

    people
    are
    not
    all
    the
    same

    most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

    Fair enough!

    We are all different, but my "theme" was that I finally got what BMR and TDEE meant. And, now that I eat between those numbers.. I am seeing modest improvements.

    I was brainwashed into thinking I had to starve myself.. I don't ever want to go through that again!

    --- One thing we all can agree on --- these forums are sure interesting!
  • marysidneyherbert
    marysidneyherbert Posts: 69
    Options
    Amen!
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    so, did you have your BMR measured to come up with your TDEE? If so, how much did it cost, and where do you go to have it done? I'm looking to do the same. The online ones are so inaccurate.
  • Turnaround2012
    Turnaround2012 Posts: 362 Member
    Options
    I know that there are centers where you can actually have professionals measure this. I remember seeing some posts about it a while back. In the meantime I used these sites to get a general idea. The results were fairly consistent.

    I was just looking for a starting point. I was reading an article somewhere where a lot of it is knowing your own body and finding out what works.

    There is a group that I joined here called: Eat, Train, Progress which is really interesting: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/10118-eat-train-progress


    Here are the BMR / TDEE Calcs I used:

    http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

    http://weightloss.about.com/od/caloriecounting/qt/calcbmr.htm

    http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

    http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

    http://www.muscleandstrength.com/tools/bmr-and-daily-calorie-calculator.html

    I just went to various websites about ideal weight too:

    http://weightloss.about.com/od/caloriecounting/qt/calcbmr.htm

    http://www.calculator.net/ideal-weight-calculator.html

    http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm

    http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/ideal_bw_men.htm

    bottom line - I have a long way to go and I am just getting out of the gate!
  • Turnaround2012
    Turnaround2012 Posts: 362 Member
    Options
    so, did you have your BMR measured to come up with your TDEE? If so, how much did it cost, and where do you go to have it done? I'm looking to do the same. The online ones are so inaccurate.

    Here are some RMR posts - This is something I will definitely look at in the future:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1079368-had-my-rmr-tested-best-au-129-i-ve-ever-spent?hl=RMR#posts-16610400

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1070860-really-frustrated-and-confused-w-my-rmr-test-results?hl=RMR#posts-16469098

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1042869-i-had-my-rmr-tested?hl=RMR#posts-16093603
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    I think next week the wife and I are going to a local "weight loss center", just for the RMR calculation. I'm having good success, but she is struggling while trying to find the right diet for her. I think her BMR calculation is *way* off, especially given that she has (treated with medication) hypothyroidism. I'll be there mostly for support, but I might as well know mine, too :)
  • s_masters20
    s_masters20 Posts: 8
    Options
    I cannot speak for other people, but 1,200 calories a day works for me. I loose weight, and I do not feel hungry. I feel like I am eating what I need, and my recent blood test done by my doctor confirm that. My body had all the nutrients it needed. That is not the right number for everyone, and it is important that everyone learn what they need to be healthy.
  • serendipity57
    serendipity57 Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    Great post OP love your thinking!
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Options
    what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

    people
    are
    not
    all
    the
    same

    most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

    How do you reach such a conclusion? If they're losing or maintaining at whatever level then they certainly don't need to be eating any less. My goal is 1825 to lose .8 pounds a week and I'll maintained around 2200-2300, should I be eating less? Other people maintain at 3000, should they be eating less? If yes, then why?

    I'm really curious about your line of reasoning.
  • snookumss
    snookumss Posts: 1,451 Member
    Options
    what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

    people
    are
    not
    all
    the
    same

    most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

    Btw, I lost 50lbs by NOT EATING ENOUGH. I actually had losses after cheat days.... wouldnt lose whenever I really tried getting consistent in the gym. I gained back 30lbs because I'd gone really deprived so long. Now, I've got the bodymedia fit armband and I eat so much more every day 200-700 extra calories consistently compared to before every day and I lose weight consistently and easier. Yes....

    I NEEDED TO EAT MORE CALORIES.

    Get over yourself.
  • snookumss
    snookumss Posts: 1,451 Member
    Options
    Technically I lost (with the most frustrating plateaus throughout) 45lbs in 53 weeks, by eating 1400-1600 calories daily.

    Now, I am to eat 1900 daily and have lost MORE than what I've been projected to lose.

    By adding calories, I have more sanity, feel better and I'm losing weight easier.
  • mccbabe1
    mccbabe1 Posts: 737 Member
    Options
    I cannot speak for other people, but 1,200 calories a day works for me. I loose weight, and I do not feel hungry. I feel like I am eating what I need, and my recent blood test done by my doctor confirm that. My body had all the nutrients it needed. That is not the right number for everyone, and it is important that everyone learn what they need to be healthy.


    obviously it works for you!!! 96 pounds lost?!??!!?!? wow!!!!!!!!!!!! :drinker:
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options
    what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

    people
    are
    not
    all
    the
    same

    most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

    Btw, I lost 50lbs by NOT EATING ENOUGH. I actually had losses after cheat days.... wouldnt lose whenever I really tried getting consistent in the gym. I gained back 30lbs because I'd gone really deprived so long. Now, I've got the bodymedia fit armband and I eat so much more every day 200-700 extra calories consistently compared to before every day and I lose weight consistently and easier. Yes....

    I NEEDED TO EAT MORE CALORIES.

    no, you didn't. I get that you think you did, but you didn't. Many, many people way smarter than I am have done lots and lots of research on the subject. The resounding conclusion was that needing to eat more calories in order to lose fat is not only untrue, but counterproductive. Perpetuating the myth is a terrible idea. The only shred of truth behind it is that weak-willed individuals find it easier to maintain a smaller deficit and avoid going back to old habits. The extra calories didn't make you lose weight, they just made your life easier while you were doing it and let you stick to it more easily. It also made the weight loss take longer.
    Get over yourself.
    classy, bro. reeeeal classy.
  • joshdann
    joshdann Posts: 618 Member
    Options

    How do you reach such a conclusion? If they're losing or maintaining at whatever level then they certainly don't need to be eating any less. My goal is 1825 to lose .8 pounds a week and I'll maintained around 2200-2300, should I be eating less? Other people maintain at 3000, should they be eating less? If yes, then why?

    I'm really curious about your line of reasoning.

    Most of the diaries I've seen, the people are not maintaining or losing very quickly. They allow themselves unhealthy foods in small quantities in the name of "well I have to eat X calories, all the dudes on MFP say so" then end up overindulging on a regular basis. Those people need to eat less. The only people that *really* need to eat more are those who have trouble getting all of the nutrients required for a healthy body. The rest is pure psychology. Lots of people find it difficult to stay focused and ignore cravings, so they screw themselves by binging, then blame it on the high deficit.

    It seems like the overwhelming majority of people on this board refuse to acknowledge the difference between something that is actually working better physically, and something that is making the effort less difficult for them. Physical versus Psychological. Eating more calories (i.e. the mythical TDEE-20%) is never, ever physically required. Science supports this.

    Hey, some people also believe that cutting out gluten will make them healthier, even though they have no disease or allergy to the substance. Those people are completely incorrect... but you can throw a rock and hit hundreds of people that swear it has worked for them.
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    Options

    How do you reach such a conclusion? If they're losing or maintaining at whatever level then they certainly don't need to be eating any less. My goal is 1825 to lose .8 pounds a week and I'll maintained around 2200-2300, should I be eating less? Other people maintain at 3000, should they be eating less? If yes, then why?

    I'm really curious about your line of reasoning.

    Most of the diaries I've seen, the people are not maintaining or losing very quickly. They allow themselves unhealthy foods in small quantities in the name of "well I have to eat X calories, all the dudes on MFP say so" then end up overindulging on a regular basis. Those people need to eat less. The only people that *really* need to eat more are those who have trouble getting all of the nutrients required for a healthy body. The rest is pure psychology. Lots of people find it difficult to stay focused and ignore cravings, so they screw themselves by binging, then blame it on the high deficit.

    It seems like the overwhelming majority of people on this board refuse to acknowledge the difference between something that is actually working better physically, and something that is making the effort less difficult for them. Physical versus Psychological. Eating more calories (i.e. the mythical TDEE-20%) is never, ever physically required. Science supports this.

    Hey, some people also believe that cutting out gluten will make them healthier, even though they have no disease or allergy to the substance. Those people are completely incorrect... but you can throw a rock and hit hundreds of people that swear it has worked for them.

    So you're of the opinion that people should eat less for the sake of eating less, since comfort and psychological reasons aren't good enough for you. I'm not sure who you are to decide that people aren't 'losing very quickly' (I would assume they're losing at a rate that fits their needs)

    Do you have some 'science' that proves a larger deficit is better or anymore physically required than a smaller deficit? I would say the only real difference is that a deficit can never be too small, as long as a person is happy with it, but a deficit can be too large, to a point where it impacts nutrition, happiness, and comfort.

    People who over indulge would do it no matter their goal and that is hardly a reason to further cut their calories.

    I could eat at 1200 and lose 2 pounds a week but...well, what the hell for. The joy of eating less? Lol?

Categories